[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your take on it is different than mine. I observe, hopefully without generalizing too much, that new-ager, relative to the general population, have tendencies to: 1) be more gullible and trusting 2) have let go of, or suspended, some of their critical faculties and reasoning. (Or never had much and were drawn to new-age stuff, thusly) 3) tend to believe, or want to believe in ONE BIG answer. 4) want to be part of the emerging transformation in this very special age Not to mention the angry (and yes, a tad Fascistic) manner in which they react to those who don't believe the same things. Just look at the reaction here on FFL to a few of us not taking the latest retirement speech (or Maharishi himself) seriously. If these people had a government in place that would do something about these nay-sayers, do you doubt for an instant that they'd disapprove of that govern- ment doing so? They'd say instead, These people have clearly missed the point and have not 'seen' this glorious vision of the future that WE have. If bad things happen to them, they brought it on themselves. The bottom line of Angela's argument (specious though it may be in spots) is that those who have agreed to be *led* by others for years or decades -- and to treat these others as 'authorities' or 'experts' or as some- how having the 'right' or 'moral authority' or 'cosmic wisdom' to tell them what to do -- are *perfect* fodder for emerging authoritarian figures. The only thing they have to change is who to salute.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Your take on it is different than mine. I observe, hopefully without generalizing too much, that new-ager, relative to the general population, have tendencies to: 1) be more gullible and trusting 2) have let go of, or suspended, some of their critical faculties and reasoning. (Or never had much and were drawn to new-age stuff, thusly) 3) tend to believe, or want to believe in ONE BIG answer. 4) want to be part of the emerging transformation in this very special age Not to mention the angry (and yes, a tad Fascistic) manner in which they react to those who don't believe the same things. Just look at the reaction here on FFL to a few of us not taking the latest retirement speech (or Maharishi himself) seriously. Note that, in Barry's mind, any vigorous disagreement with his own views is automatically angry and its motivations therefore suspect. Some might consider such a premise itself to be a tad fascistic (no need to cap the term in its generic sense, Barry). If these people had a government in place that would do something about these nay-sayers, do you doubt for an instant that they'd disapprove of that govern- ment doing so? They'd say instead, These people have clearly missed the point and have not 'seen' this glorious vision of the future that WE have. If bad things happen to them, they brought it on themselves. I don't doubt for an instant that the supporters of a Barry Government would say precisely the same thing about its naysayers. The bottom line of Angela's argument (specious though it may be in spots) is that those who have agreed to be *led* by others for years or decades -- and to treat these others as 'authorities' or 'experts' or as some- how having the 'right' or 'moral authority' or 'cosmic wisdom' to tell them what to do -- are *perfect* fodder for emerging authoritarian figures. The only thing they have to change is who to salute. I don't think that's actually the bottom line of Angela's argument. In any case, as I've already pointed out, the threat posed to society by those willing to submit to authoritarian leaders is to be found with any sectarian group; but the sectarian groups among New Agers are all pitifully small and lacking in influence compared to those among adherents of the established religions, Christianity in particular.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Good post which I don't really have time to reply properly to, but I would say that your point that new-agers are gullible and trusting and have let go of their critical faculties applies when they are talking about such things as astrology, psychics, healers and saints. I don't think it extends to the political world where new-agers (at least the ones I know) That seems to imply a conscious choice I'll be gullible about astrology, but I will be really skeptical when it comes to politics. Not at all. What New Agers are skeptical about is what they can see in front of their noses; what they're gullible about is what we don't or cannot know.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
I have been close to a member of one of these organizations. My brother-in-law. Also, had I done what I was supposed to do at age 18, I would have married into that whole world, and I knew very well what that world was about and what my role in it would be. I mentioned in another post that this b-in-l had created a conspiracy against the peoples of two African countries. Let me be more specific. It was his assignment in both cases to go in and nationalize business, industry, and government to make these countries independent of French colonial rule. That was the official job. The unofficial job was to make it seem like this was happening without in fact disturbing the hegemony and the income realized by France and the World Bank who, in the end, remained very much in control of both countries. That's a conspiracy in my book. Of course, the b-in-l was convinced that what he was doing was in fact in everyone's best interest. I lived with him and my sister for about a year and saw things I can't repeat. But I do not for a minute doubt the aptness of the pyramid imagery (after all, we've got it on our money), though I can't conclude with Icke that lizards run the show. I have seen no real evidence. On the other hand, anything is possible and anything means anything. It is the nature of a pyramid that the whole thing is transparent from the top down but opaque from the bottom up. aztjbailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Awesome writing. I respond to Icke's pyramid imagery. Basically we are in a kind of global system of organized crime. There are pyramids we can (to an extent) see, such as the Council of Foreign Relations, where, for example, you can go to their website and read a half dozen or so position papers on how absolutely wonderful the world will be when Mexico joins with the U.S. and Canada, and then there are pyramid organizations like the Bilderburgers (just the name of the hotel where they had their first meeting) that meet in secret, and then there are secret organizations like the Masonic system, and the even more secret ones like Skull and Bones. The people who are at the bottom and middle of these org's are the chumps, and even as they approach the top, they may not be given any insight into the plans going on. Its only a few at the top of these pyramids that reporting to their masters, large monied families who would really rather not be known. I can see how someone would dismiss this as conspiracy drivel but if you have ever benn close to a member of one these organizations you would think differently. Its crucial then, that communities independently developing concioussness, (Fairfield) stay strong and vibrant. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wouldn't say that New Age tendencies in the U.S. are likely to lead to a fascist regime for three reasons (which comment and expand upon one another endlessy). 1) causal relationships are difficult enough to distinguish from 100% correlations in the hard sciences. In the area of intellectual history it would be next to impossible. 2) There are many ways to see history, but they fall essentially into two camps. One is the shit happens theory of history, which is generally preferred by the academic establishment. They tend to write things like so-and-so came to power or the war broke out. The other is the conspiracy nut point of view, which is expressed by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he says, In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. The truth must lie somewhere in between those two extremes, but, as you know, I tend toward the conspiracy nut perspective by virtue of my programming. 3) What the f... do I know about how things happen in hte world? I am an amness at the core, and exactly what that is, is prolly not knowable, if knowable is restricted to that whereof we can more or less speak. 4) Is thinking the cause of action in the world? Is consciousness identical with the vacuum state? My best friend in another chat group had a great story to tell about that. A fish out of water, he said, Is a Godless fish. The reason a fish out of water flops around in the bottom of the boat is that out of water, he feels like only half a fish. Unlike us, a fish does not have a mid-brain. A fish's sense of life and reality and consciousness comes from the water pressure on the left and right sides of his body. Water is God to a fish, you see. In the boat, he only feels contact with the bottom of the boat. The air does not register in his sense for distinctions drawn. We have a midbrain, so our sense of God or am-ness is located in the famous pineal gland. That is where our sense of Eternity and intelligence resides. The rest is programming of one kind
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
My original statements were 1) I see fascist elements in the TMO. That's not a matter of discussion. I see what I see. Prolly cause I've got Hitler on the brain. 2) I think the New Age may play into the hands of those leading us to fascism because of the emphasis on personal development which is about me, it's not about us. Also, we tend to believe things that keep us from political activism. a) We have a technique that will bring peace on earth, all we have to do is practice it in the privacy of our homes and domes b) We don't focus on negativity. Last time I was in the dome, Marshy out and out said to ignore what was going on in the world. But to me, seeing a boulder in the road ahead when I'm driving is not focusing on negativity. c) If bad things happen to others (as in Gitmo and God knows how many other secret locations) then that is their karma. If we get involved in that, we're taking that terrible karma on ourselves--in a kind of reversal of Christian doctrine. d) We do not oppose. e) We only speak the truth that is sweet. f) We eventually come to believe that no matter what goes down, all is right in God's world. The less educated and intelligent fall for Christian fundamentalism, the more educated and intelligent are led away from political activism in the way I've outlined. a authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wouldn't say that New Age tendencies in the U.S. are likely to lead to a fascist regime for three reasons (which comment and expand upon one another endlessy). 1) causal relationships are difficult enough to distinguish from 100% correlations in the hard sciences. In the area of intellectual history it would be next to impossible. I'd say it's extremely unlikely on its face, because (a) there aren't that many New Age devotees in the U.S.; (b) New Age is not sectarian--it encompasses a very wide range of very different belief systems; and (c) what New Age beliefs do tend to have in common is a loathing for war and strong opposition to fascist-style thinking and to injustice and intolerance of any kind. 2) There are many ways to see history, but they fall essentially into two camps. One is the shit happens theory of history, which is generally preferred by the academic establishment. They tend to write things like so-and-so came to power or the war broke out. Well, they do if they're writing an outline for high school students. But if they're writing scholarly papers or books, they're likely to go deeply into causes. So I don't think it makes any sense to say the shit happens theory is preferred by the academic establishment. The other is the conspiracy nut point of view, which is expressed by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he says, In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. Maybe it was expressed by FDR, maybe it wasn't. I've never seen it sourced (so there's no way of knowing the context), and I have seen it attributed both to FDR and Teddy Roosevelt; so probably just as well not to hold it up as an authoritative conclusion born of significant experience. If either of them actually said it, it's entirely possible it was a throwaway line referring to some relatively minor incident that appeared spontaneous but turned out to have been planned. In other words, it may not have much of any bearing on the issue at hand. That said-- The truth must lie somewhere in between those two extremes --you're surely right about this. but, as you know, I tend toward the conspiracy nut perspective by virtue of my programming. Which you seem to be trying to impose on us. It's usually possible to change one's programming, you know, if it turns out not to hold up under examination. snip Given all that, what I see in today's world is a contraction into fascism. I've seen it before. Why does it happen and is it evil, is it necessary and if not how can it be avoided? Those are not, ultimately, questions I can answer. But here is how it looks to me. People (who look like us) are leading the world into a period in which hell on earth looks pretty much like what I was born into in 1940 in Berlin. Why are they doing it? Or is this just part of the cyclical shit that happens in the history of an intelligent species? It sure looks to me that those leading us into such an unpleasant experience use religion, whether it's new age or christian or whatever, to herd us down that road. That doesn't necessarily mean that either religion or new age practice is not also all the good things they claim to be. How does it look to you? Well, we certainly aren't marching firmly *away* from fascism. We're definitely in a dangerous period, where all kinds of pretty awful things could happen because of the twisted
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
You make some excellent points which I will think about. new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: I wouldn't say that New Age tendencies in the U.S. are likely to lead to a fascist regime for three reasons (which comment and expand upon one another endlessy). 1) causal relationships are difficult enough to distinguish from 100% correlations in the hard sciences. In the area of intellectual history it would be next to impossible. I'd say it's extremely unlikely on its face, because (a) there aren't that many New Age devotees in the U.S.; Depends on how one classifies it. I include counter-culture thinking and trends for the 60's as part of my broad definition of new age. And the 60's revolution, IMO, has been silently won in the past 20-40 years. Many if not most of the very fringe ideas then, amazingly now to think how provincial, limited, and tight-assed American and the world were back then. In short-hand, anyone can take issue with the specifics without my giving more precise treatment, the following is commonplace now, and odd, fringe, weird, if not immoral and decadent in mid to late 60' across he wider population -- middle america, Peoria, etc: womens, blacks, hispanics and gays right to equal jobs and pay, healthy, nutritious food, yoga, meditation or all forms, pre-marital sex and cohabitation, recreational chemicals, deeply questioning and saying no to the government, t'shirts and jeans as mainstream dress , ecology and the environment, birth control, abortion rights, vegetarianism -- or at least not eating red meat 3 times a day, fitness, joggimg, gay and interracial couples in public, the musical, art, trends of the 60's +, broader access to education, etc. (b) New Age is not sectarian--it encompasses a very wide range of very different belief systems; and (c) what New Age beliefs do tend to have in common is a loathing for war and strong opposition to fascist-style thinking and to injustice and intolerance of any kind. 2) There are many ways to see history, but they fall essentially into two camps. One is the shit happens theory of history, which is generally preferred by the academic establishment. They tend to write things like so-and-so came to power or the war broke out. Well, they do if they're writing an outline for high school students. But if they're writing scholarly papers or books, they're likely to go deeply into causes. So I don't think it makes any sense to say the shit happens theory is preferred by the academic establishment. Agreed. The other is the conspiracy nut point of view, which is expressed by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he says, In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. Maybe it was expressed by FDR, maybe it wasn't. I've never seen it sourced (so there's no way of knowing the context), and I have seen it attributed both to FDR and Teddy Roosevelt; so probably just as well not to hold it up as an authoritative conclusion born of significant experience. Certainly not a new theme in FDR's time. but, as you know, I tend toward the conspiracy nut perspective by virtue of my programming. Which you seem to be trying to impose on us. I don't see Angela imposing anything. She brings up some interesting points. Some less so. All or most worth considering and sharpening ones own stance on the topic, It's usually possible to change one's programming, you know, if it turns out not to hold up under examination. snip Given all that, what I see in today's world is a contraction into fascism. I've seen it before. Why does it happen and is it evil, is it necessary and if not how can it be avoided? Those are not, ultimately, questions I can answer. But here is how it looks to me. People (who look like us) are leading the world into a period in which hell on earth looks pretty much like what I was born into in 1940 in Berlin. Why are they doing it? Or is this just part of the cyclical shit that happens in the history of an intelligent species? It sure looks to me that those leading us into such an unpleasant experience use religion, whether it's new age or christian or whatever, to herd us down that road. That doesn't necessarily mean that either religion or new age practice is not also all the good things they claim to be. How does it look to you? Well, we certainly aren't marching firmly *away* from fascism. We're definitely in a dangerous period, where all kinds of pretty awful things could happen because of the twisted perspectives of those in power and those who support them. I see, and have held since the 2000 appointment of
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
Yes, I agree. Supportive. I never said causal and wouldn't. Causes are impossible to speak of in the area of intellectual history. new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This idea that New Age tendencies in the US are likely to lead to fascism (even though you seem here to be backing off from saying this) still strikes me as completely wrong. On the contrary, I think New Agers are the least likely to embrace such a view and in fact stand as a bulwark against it. New Agers support people like Kucinich and Obama, not the proto-fascists that are lining up for the Republicans. Look at the support Obama has in Fairfield and compare that to Guiliani and the others who see their divine mission as fighting the Islamofascists. They are the ones we have to worry about. Your take on it is different than mine. I observe, hopefully without generalizing too much, that new-ager, relative to the general population, have tendencies to: 1) be more gullible and trusting 2) have let go of, or suspended, some of their critical faculties and reasoning. (Or never had much and were drawn to new-age stuff, thusly) 3) tend to believe, or want to believe in ONE BIG answer. 4) want to be part of the emerging transformation in this very special age No one, well few, vote for fascist or totalitarian regime. Anglea's post this morning was interesting. Good Germans initially supporting Hitler because he was doing God's work. Or at least creating a strong German economy, increasing employment, supporting the arts, revitalizing German culture. It seems that people with the above four tendencies would initially support a Hitler than hard core skeptics. That FF tends to support left of center fringe candidates also speaks of these tendencies. And the most here were lulled in to a progressive SIMS vision of scientifically researched, simple, no dogma, universal 40 technique of self-development. They ended up 20-30 years later with a repressive, totalitarian like cult, yogic flying, the Laws of Manu, and now mealy mouthed rajas. Did they consciously choose that in the beginning? I suggest the above four tendencies are predominant in most TMO groups, past or present. And the result has been people getting sucked into something they would not have otherwise -- to the extent they did -- if they had been less gullible, more skeptical, more questioning, less attracted to grand solutions and a mission to save the world. I think a group or society with the above four tendencies is a more fertile ground for creeping transition towards, not necessarily to, totalitarian and fascist regimes. Not causal . But a supportive, albeit not intentionally, feature. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My original statements were 1) I see fascist elements in the TMO. That's not a matter of discussion. I see what I see. Prolly cause I've got Hitler on the brain. At least as much in the way of fascist elements in Christianism. 2) I think the New Age may play into the hands of those leading us to fascism because of the emphasis on personal development which is about me, it's not about us. Same could be said of Christianism, and there are a lot more Christianists than there are New Agers. Also, we tend to believe things that keep us from political activism. Christianists make a big point of being politically active, especially to elect those who will impose their beliefs on the rest of us. a) We have a technique that will bring peace on earth, all we have to do is practice it in the privacy of our homes and domes And Christianists want everyone to practice their techniques to bring about the apocalypse, in public. b) We don't focus on negativity. Last time I was in the dome, Marshy out and out said to ignore what was going on in the world. But to me, seeing a boulder in the road ahead when I'm driving is not focusing on negativity. Do you focus on the possibility that there will be boulders in the road when you aren't *on* the road? c) If bad things happen to others (as in Gitmo and God knows how many other secret locations) then that is their karma. If we get involved in that, we're taking that terrible karma on ourselves--in a kind of reversal of Christian doctrine. This ain't the TMO view, and I doubt it's the view of most New Agers. As far as Christianists are concerned, if bad things happen to those in Gitmo and other secret locations, they deserve it because they're terrorists who would murder us at the drop of a hat. It would be disastrous for national security (i.e., for *my* security) if we attempted to make life any easier for them. d) We do not oppose. e) We only speak the truth that is sweet. f) We eventually come to believe that no matter what goes down, all is right in God's world. All this exactly the opposite of the Christianists. Which set of beliefs is more amenable to fascist control? The less educated and intelligent fall for Christian fundamentalism, the more educated and intelligent are led away from political activism in the way I've outlined. a Which is more dangerous with regard to the possibility of the rise of a fascist regime, not engaging in political activism or engaging in it *to bring about that very fascist regime*? Angela, you make all my points for me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Your take on it is different than mine. I observe, hopefully without generalizing too much, that new-ager, relative to the general population, have tendencies to: 1) be more gullible and trusting 2) have let go of, or suspended, some of their critical faculties and reasoning. (Or never had much and were drawn to new-age stuff, thusly) 3) tend to believe, or want to believe in ONE BIG answer. 4) want to be part of the emerging transformation in this very special age Not to mention the angry (and yes, a tad Fascistic) manner in which they react to those who don't believe the same things. Just look at the reaction here on FFL to a few of us not taking the latest retirement speech (or Maharishi himself) seriously. Note that, in Barry's mind, any vigorous disagreement with his own views is automatically angry and its motivations therefore suspect. Some might consider such a premise itself to be a tad fascistic (no need to cap the term in its generic sense, Barry). If these people had a government in place that would do something about these nay-sayers, do you doubt for an instant that they'd disapprove of that govern- ment doing so? They'd say instead, These people have clearly missed the point and have not 'seen' this glorious vision of the future that WE have. If bad things happen to them, they brought it on themselves. I don't doubt for an instant that the supporters of a Barry Government would say precisely the same thing about its naysayers. The bottom line of Angela's argument (specious though it may be in spots) is that those who have agreed to be *led* by others for years or decades -- and to treat these others as 'authorities' or 'experts' or as some- how having the 'right' or 'moral authority' or 'cosmic wisdom' to tell them what to do -- are *perfect* fodder for emerging authoritarian figures. The only thing they have to change is who to salute. I don't think that's actually the bottom line of Angela's argument. FWIW, it does capture a, perhaps not all, bottom lines (there actually can multiple conclusions, even if not bottom lines) of my argument, referenced above. In any case, as I've already pointed out, the threat posed to society by those willing to submit to authoritarian leaders is to be found with any sectarian group; true , but that does not make new agers any less prone to do so. but the sectarian groups among New Agers are all pitifully small and lacking in influence compared to those among adherents of the established religions, Christianity in particular. Fine. But that in no way nullifies my basic premise that new-agers, broadly defined, and TMO TB's specifically, have the inner structures a least a bit ripe, or in the process of ripening, adequate for getting hood-winked into a totalitarian framework.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Good post which I don't really have time to reply properly to, but I would say that your point that new-agers are gullible and trusting and have let go of their critical faculties applies when they are talking about such things as astrology, psychics, healers and saints. I don't think it extends to the political world where new-agers (at least the ones I know) That seems to imply a conscious choice I'll be gullible about astrology, but I will be really skeptical when it comes to politics. Not at all. What New Agers are skeptical about is what they can see in front of their noses; what they're gullible about is what we don't or cannot know. Not at all. :) The point is that the facade of some nicely packaged political or social solutions, is not obvious, its not something most do or can know up front. Pretty packaging for TMO initiatives, Pretty packaging for political platforms, pretty packaging of astrology. Theya are ALL so pretty! It all sounds nice. And all are, or can be absorbed, and accepted gullibly -- for those who have high(er) degrees of the 4-5 tendencies that I enumerated. As I said, i think the gullible are the last to know they are gullible. They cannot turn it on or off. IMO, the point is well demonstrated here when you read some wide-eyed laudations of this or that candidate. Some such drip with gullibility, IMO. For some, the gullies, I don't see rigorous analysis or natural skepticism getting cranked up when political ideas and platforms are put under their nose. YMMV. Gullies is an interesting descriptor. Gullies get really inspired by Seagull stories -- and are prone to pledge substantial sums for a permanent residence for our king here in FF based on such stories. Only to go, a few months later, Gee whiz, they pulled the wool over our eyes AGAIN. Oh well, I am sure they won't do THAT again. La de Da! Life is Bliss. And then in the next breath go on to talk about their favorite political candidate and how the candidate is so in tune wit the laws of nature and has SUCH a good Jyotish chart -- they are sure to be the next president. For such gullies, I simply don't see rigorous analysis or natural skepticism getting cranked up when political ideas and platforms are put under their nose.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Good post which I don't really have time to reply properly to, but I would say that your point that new-agers are gullible and trusting and have let go of their critical faculties applies when they are talking about such things as astrology, psychics, healers and saints. I don't think it extends to the political world where new-agers (at least the ones I know) That seems to imply a conscious choice I'll be gullible about astrology, but I will be really skeptical when it comes to politics. Not at all. What New Agers are skeptical about is what they can see in front of their noses; what they're gullible about is what we don't or cannot know. Not at all. :) The point is that the facade of some nicely packaged political or social solutions, is not obvious, its not something most do or can know up front. No, you're missing the point. I'm describing two ends of a spectrum, not a black-and-white dichotomy. The less we know or can know about something, the more gullible the New Agers are. The more we know about something, the more skeptical they are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Good post which I don't really have time to reply properly to, but I would say that your point that new-agers are gullible and trusting and have let go of their critical faculties applies when they are talking about such things as astrology, psychics, healers and saints. I don't think it extends to the political world where new-agers (at least the ones I know) That seems to imply a conscious choice I'll be gullible about astrology, but I will be really skeptical when it comes to politics. Not at all. What New Agers are skeptical about is what they can see in front of their noses; what they're gullible about is what we don't or cannot know. Not at all. :) The point is that the facade of some nicely packaged political or social solutions, is not obvious, its not something most do or can know up front. ... The less we know or can know about something, the more gullible the New Agers are. The more we know about something, the more skeptical they are. I neither challenge or accept that premise. However, regardless, the conclusion is consistent with my larger thesis. That is, that many new-agers, many TB/rus, IMO, display parallel degrees of gullibility in things such as astrology as in politics -- specifically in the area of the economy (around which much of politics revolves). IMO, and observation, some, quite a few IMO, new agers, TB/Rus, and Rus -- divorced from the TMO, are not very knowledgable about economics. And they spout / repeat naive and gullible political platforms about economic matters based on this shallow knowledge. They are gullible in this field of which they do not have substantive knowledge, as well as in matters of astrology, etc. Whether such gullies are less gullible in matters in which they do have more knowledge, is an interesting question. I tend to think they are. But I will consider your POV.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [addressed to Angela] What's most disturbing about your New Age/Nazi conspiracy theorizing is that the people who are most avidly pushing this fantasy--the Christianist right--are the real proto-fascists in this country. The threat isn't New Age fascism, it's Christo- fascism. I read that and wonder if I am improper, in your view, in looking at some new-age elements in pre-third reich Germany. Depends entirely on what you make of what you find. snip The Christianists are trying to demonize the New Agers as a first step toward demonizing all religions except their fascist brand of Christianity. And you're playing right along with them, inadvertently or otherwise. You're helping the very people who are most likely to bring about what you claim to see coming. Is the recommendation , therefore, in your view, for me to shut down my inquiry I don't see you making dire predictions based on that inquiry that New Age tendencies in the U.S. are likely to lead to a fascist regime.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
I wouldn't say that New Age tendencies in the U.S. are likely to lead to a fascist regime for three reasons (which comment and expand upon one another endlessy). 1) causal relationships are difficult enough to distinguish from 100% correlations in the hard sciences. In the area of intellectual history it would be next to impossible. 2) There are many ways to see history, but they fall essentially into two camps. One is the shit happens theory of history, which is generally preferred by the academic establishment. They tend to write things like so-and-so came to power or the war broke out. The other is the conspiracy nut point of view, which is expressed by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he says, In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. The truth must lie somewhere in between those two extremes, but, as you know, I tend toward the conspiracy nut perspective by virtue of my programming. 3) What the f... do I know about how things happen in hte world? I am an amness at the core, and exactly what that is, is prolly not knowable, if knowable is restricted to that whereof we can more or less speak. 4) Is thinking the cause of action in the world? Is consciousness identical with the vacuum state? My best friend in another chat group had a great story to tell about that. A fish out of water, he said, Is a Godless fish. The reason a fish out of water flops around in the bottom of the boat is that out of water, he feels like only half a fish. Unlike us, a fish does not have a mid-brain. A fish's sense of life and reality and consciousness comes from the water pressure on the left and right sides of his body. Water is God to a fish, you see. In the boat, he only feels contact with the bottom of the boat. The air does not register in his sense for distinctions drawn. We have a midbrain, so our sense of God or am-ness is located in the famous pineal gland. That is where our sense of Eternity and intelligence resides. The rest is programming of one kind or another. That sense of amness feels immortal and we know all the Hindu stories invented about it as well as all the Christian stories. Given all that, what I see in today's world is a contraction into fascism. I've seen it before. Why does it happen and is it evil, is it necessary and if not how can it be avoided? Those are not, ultimately, questions I can answer. But here is how it looks to me. People (who look like us) are leading the world into a period in which hell on earth looks pretty much like what I was born into in 1940 in Berlin. Why are they doing it? Or is this just part of the cyclical shit that happens in the history of an intelligent species? It sure looks to me that those leading us into such an unpleasant experience use religion, whether it's new age or christian or whatever, to herd us down that road. That doesn't necessarily mean that either religion or new age practice is not also all the good things they claim to be. How does it look to you? authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [addressed to Angela] What's most disturbing about your New Age/Nazi conspiracy theorizing is that the people who are most avidly pushing this fantasy--the Christianist right--are the real proto-fascists in this country. The threat isn't New Age fascism, it's Christo- fascism. I read that and wonder if I am improper, in your view, in looking at some new-age elements in pre-third reich Germany. Depends entirely on what you make of what you find. snip The Christianists are trying to demonize the New Agers as a first step toward demonizing all religions except their fascist brand of Christianity. And you're playing right along with them, inadvertently or otherwise. You're helping the very people who are most likely to bring about what you claim to see coming. Is the recommendation , therefore, in your view, for me to shut down my inquiry I don't see you making dire predictions based on that inquiry that New Age tendencies in the U.S. are likely to lead to a fascist regime. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
Awesome writing. I respond to Icke's pyramid imagery. Basically we are in a kind of global system of organized crime. There are pyramids we can (to an extent) see, such as the Council of Foreign Relations, where, for example, you can go to their website and read a half dozen or so position papers on how absolutely wonderful the world will be when Mexico joins with the U.S. and Canada, and then there are pyramid organizations like the Bilderburgers (just the name of the hotel where they had their first meeting) that meet in secret, and then there are secret organizations like the Masonic system, and the even more secret ones like Skull and Bones. The people who are at the bottom and middle of these org's are the chumps, and even as they approach the top, they may not be given any insight into the plans going on. Its only a few at the top of these pyramids that reporting to their masters, large monied families who would really rather not be known. I can see how someone would dismiss this as conspiracy drivel but if you have ever benn close to a member of one these organizations you would think differently. Its crucial then, that communities independently developing concioussness, (Fairfield) stay strong and vibrant. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wouldn't say that New Age tendencies in the U.S. are likely to lead to a fascist regime for three reasons (which comment and expand upon one another endlessy). 1) causal relationships are difficult enough to distinguish from 100% correlations in the hard sciences. In the area of intellectual history it would be next to impossible. 2) There are many ways to see history, but they fall essentially into two camps. One is the shit happens theory of history, which is generally preferred by the academic establishment. They tend to write things like so-and-so came to power or the war broke out. The other is the conspiracy nut point of view, which is expressed by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he says, In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. The truth must lie somewhere in between those two extremes, but, as you know, I tend toward the conspiracy nut perspective by virtue of my programming. 3) What the f... do I know about how things happen in hte world? I am an amness at the core, and exactly what that is, is prolly not knowable, if knowable is restricted to that whereof we can more or less speak. 4) Is thinking the cause of action in the world? Is consciousness identical with the vacuum state? My best friend in another chat group had a great story to tell about that. A fish out of water, he said, Is a Godless fish. The reason a fish out of water flops around in the bottom of the boat is that out of water, he feels like only half a fish. Unlike us, a fish does not have a mid-brain. A fish's sense of life and reality and consciousness comes from the water pressure on the left and right sides of his body. Water is God to a fish, you see. In the boat, he only feels contact with the bottom of the boat. The air does not register in his sense for distinctions drawn. We have a midbrain, so our sense of God or am-ness is located in the famous pineal gland. That is where our sense of Eternity and intelligence resides. The rest is programming of one kind or another. That sense of amness feels immortal and we know all the Hindu stories invented about it as well as all the Christian stories. Given all that, what I see in today's world is a contraction into fascism. I've seen it before. Why does it happen and is it evil, is it necessary and if not how can it be avoided? Those are not, ultimately, questions I can answer. But here is how it looks to me. People (who look like us) are leading the world into a period in which hell on earth looks pretty much like what I was born into in 1940 in Berlin. Why are they doing it? Or is this just part of the cyclical shit that happens in the history of an intelligent species? It sure looks to me that those leading us into such an unpleasant experience use religion, whether it's new age or christian or whatever, to herd us down that road. That doesn't necessarily mean that either religion or new age practice is not also all the good things they claim to be. How does it look to you? authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [addressed to Angela] What's most disturbing about your New Age/Nazi conspiracy theorizing is that the people who are most avidly pushing this fantasy--the Christianist right--are the real proto-fascists in this country. The threat isn't New Age fascism, it's Christo- fascism. I read that and
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wouldn't say that New Age tendencies in the U.S. are likely to lead to a fascist regime for three reasons (which comment and expand upon one another endlessy). 1) causal relationships are difficult enough to distinguish from 100% correlations in the hard sciences. In the area of intellectual history it would be next to impossible. I'd say it's extremely unlikely on its face, because (a) there aren't that many New Age devotees in the U.S.; (b) New Age is not sectarian--it encompasses a very wide range of very different belief systems; and (c) what New Age beliefs do tend to have in common is a loathing for war and strong opposition to fascist-style thinking and to injustice and intolerance of any kind. 2) There are many ways to see history, but they fall essentially into two camps. One is the shit happens theory of history, which is generally preferred by the academic establishment. They tend to write things like so-and-so came to power or the war broke out. Well, they do if they're writing an outline for high school students. But if they're writing scholarly papers or books, they're likely to go deeply into causes. So I don't think it makes any sense to say the shit happens theory is preferred by the academic establishment. The other is the conspiracy nut point of view, which is expressed by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he says, In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. Maybe it was expressed by FDR, maybe it wasn't. I've never seen it sourced (so there's no way of knowing the context), and I have seen it attributed both to FDR and Teddy Roosevelt; so probably just as well not to hold it up as an authoritative conclusion born of significant experience. If either of them actually said it, it's entirely possible it was a throwaway line referring to some relatively minor incident that appeared spontaneous but turned out to have been planned. In other words, it may not have much of any bearing on the issue at hand. That said-- The truth must lie somewhere in between those two extremes --you're surely right about this. but, as you know, I tend toward the conspiracy nut perspective by virtue of my programming. Which you seem to be trying to impose on us. It's usually possible to change one's programming, you know, if it turns out not to hold up under examination. snip Given all that, what I see in today's world is a contraction into fascism. I've seen it before. Why does it happen and is it evil, is it necessary and if not how can it be avoided? Those are not, ultimately, questions I can answer. But here is how it looks to me. People (who look like us) are leading the world into a period in which hell on earth looks pretty much like what I was born into in 1940 in Berlin. Why are they doing it? Or is this just part of the cyclical shit that happens in the history of an intelligent species? It sure looks to me that those leading us into such an unpleasant experience use religion, whether it's new age or christian or whatever, to herd us down that road. That doesn't necessarily mean that either religion or new age practice is not also all the good things they claim to be. How does it look to you? Well, we certainly aren't marching firmly *away* from fascism. We're definitely in a dangerous period, where all kinds of pretty awful things could happen because of the twisted perspectives of those in power and those who support them. But it's not always religion that is used to create an oppressive regime (unless you want to define religion so loosely that it encompasses, say, Marxism-Leninism). It does seem, however, that Christianity has greater potential to be used that way than have New Age-type spiritual movements, because of Christianity's exclusivist theology and its moralism via St. Paul, not to mention the apocalypticism of some of its branches. I have no doubt there are powers behind the scenes who are working on various nefarious schemes to further what they see as their own self-interest, or who may even be motivated by idealism of some sort. But I think the purported New Age connection is about as flimsy as any conspiracy theory I've ever come across.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wouldn't say that New Age tendencies in the U.S. are likely to lead to a fascist regime for three reasons (which comment and expand upon one another endlessy). 1) causal relationships are difficult enough to distinguish from 100% correlations in the hard sciences. In the area of intellectual history it would be next to impossible. 2) There are many ways to see history, but they fall essentially into two camps. One is the shit happens theory of history, which is generally preferred by the academic establishment. They tend to write things like so-and-so came to power or the war broke out. The other is the conspiracy nut point of view, which is expressed by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he says, In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. The truth must lie somewhere in between those two extremes, but, as you know, I tend toward the conspiracy nut perspective by virtue of my programming. 3) What the f... do I know about how things happen in hte world? I am an amness at the core, and exactly what that is, is prolly not knowable, if knowable is restricted to that whereof we can more or less speak. 4) Is thinking the cause of action in the world? Is consciousness identical with the vacuum state? My best friend in another chat group had a great story to tell about that. A fish out of water, he said, Is a Godless fish. The reason a fish out of water flops around in the bottom of the boat is that out of water, he feels like only half a fish. Unlike us, a fish does not have a mid-brain. A fish's sense of life and reality and consciousness comes from the water pressure on the left and right sides of his body. Water is God to a fish, you see. In the boat, he only feels contact with the bottom of the boat. The air does not register in his sense for distinctions drawn. We have a midbrain, so our sense of God or am-ness is located in the famous pineal gland. That is where our sense of Eternity and intelligence resides. The rest is programming of one kind or another. That sense of amness feels immortal and we know all the Hindu stories invented about it as well as all the Christian stories. Given all that, what I see in today's world is a contraction into fascism. I've seen it before. Why does it happen and is it evil, is it necessary and if not how can it be avoided? Those are not, ultimately, questions I can answer. But here is how it looks to me. People (who look like us) are leading the world into a period in which hell on earth looks pretty much like what I was born into in 1940 in Berlin. Why are they doing it? Or is this just part of the cyclical shit that happens in the history of an intelligent species? It sure looks to me that those leading us into such an unpleasant experience use religion, whether it's new age or christian or whatever, to herd us down that road. That doesn't necessarily mean that either religion or new age practice is not also all the good things they claim to be. How does it look to you? A smattering of thoughts, in a nutshell: I am not sure I see fascism as a the primary trajectory of todays world, or the US specifically. I see at least a third school of history -- and social sciences. I don't think any individuals or groups are smart or clear enough to bend things to their precise liking and vision. But things are not random. As an example in my post earlier, social actions have consequences -- choose guns or butter and you get quite different results. The understanding of the causation of each result is not perfect, but current knowledge captures a lot more than just randomness. Also a Hegelian dialectic type of reaction, creating the foundation for a next, different reaction to it, is an interesting way to view events. Also, parallel to your fish point, perhaps, reality is subjective, and thus history is subjective. For example, what some may feel and fear as fascism, others will see as increased freedom. Which his partly which side of the playground one is on. And even those on the same side -- some will feel persecuted, others free and productive. Look at FFL, some appear to feel great persecution -- others live a similar life and see things quite differently. New age spiritual and fundamentalist religious views may be part of a Hegelian dynamic, each reacting to forces and foundations they dislike or want to change. The counter-culture, socially and politically, in the 60's, created a backlash of law and order and religious fundamentalism. The later too has been a reaction to the extension of the franchise of freedom and rights to larger groups: racial, gender, gender-preference defined groups. Technology is a two edge sword -- but IMO tends to be a liberating and equalizing force. its hard to imagine a 30's style fascism or the totalitarianism of the Soviets taking a firm grasp on a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ wrote: I wouldn't say that New Age tendencies in the U.S. are likely to lead to a fascist regime for three reasons (which comment and expand upon one another endlessy). 1) causal relationships are difficult enough to distinguish from 100% correlations in the hard sciences. In the area of intellectual history it would be next to impossible. I'd say it's extremely unlikely on its face, because (a) there aren't that many New Age devotees in the U.S.; Depends on how one classifies it. I include counter-culture thinking and trends for the 60's as part of my broad definition of new age. And the 60's revolution, IMO, has been silently won in the past 20-40 years. Many if not most of the very fringe ideas then, amazingly now to think how provincial, limited, and tight-assed American and the world were back then. In short-hand, anyone can take issue with the specifics without my giving more precise treatment, the following is commonplace now, and odd, fringe, weird, if not immoral and decadent in mid to late 60' across he wider population -- middle america, Peoria, etc: womens, blacks, hispanics and gays right to equal jobs and pay, healthy, nutritious food, yoga, meditation or all forms, pre-marital sex and cohabitation, recreational chemicals, deeply questioning and saying no to the government, t'shirts and jeans as mainstream dress , ecology and the environment, birth control, abortion rights, vegetarianism -- or at least not eating red meat 3 times a day, fitness, joggimg, gay and interracial couples in public, the musical, art, trends of the 60's +, broader access to education, etc. (b) New Age is not sectarian--it encompasses a very wide range of very different belief systems; and (c) what New Age beliefs do tend to have in common is a loathing for war and strong opposition to fascist-style thinking and to injustice and intolerance of any kind. 2) There are many ways to see history, but they fall essentially into two camps. One is the shit happens theory of history, which is generally preferred by the academic establishment. They tend to write things like so-and-so came to power or the war broke out. Well, they do if they're writing an outline for high school students. But if they're writing scholarly papers or books, they're likely to go deeply into causes. So I don't think it makes any sense to say the shit happens theory is preferred by the academic establishment. Agreed. The other is the conspiracy nut point of view, which is expressed by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he says, In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. Maybe it was expressed by FDR, maybe it wasn't. I've never seen it sourced (so there's no way of knowing the context), and I have seen it attributed both to FDR and Teddy Roosevelt; so probably just as well not to hold it up as an authoritative conclusion born of significant experience. Certainly not a new theme in FDR's time. but, as you know, I tend toward the conspiracy nut perspective by virtue of my programming. Which you seem to be trying to impose on us. I don't see Angela imposing anything. She brings up some interesting points. Some less so. All or most worth considering and sharpening ones own stance on the topic, It's usually possible to change one's programming, you know, if it turns out not to hold up under examination. snip Given all that, what I see in today's world is a contraction into fascism. I've seen it before. Why does it happen and is it evil, is it necessary and if not how can it be avoided? Those are not, ultimately, questions I can answer. But here is how it looks to me. People (who look like us) are leading the world into a period in which hell on earth looks pretty much like what I was born into in 1940 in Berlin. Why are they doing it? Or is this just part of the cyclical shit that happens in the history of an intelligent species? It sure looks to me that those leading us into such an unpleasant experience use religion, whether it's new age or christian or whatever, to herd us down that road. That doesn't necessarily mean that either religion or new age practice is not also all the good things they claim to be. How does it look to you? Well, we certainly aren't marching firmly *away* from fascism. We're definitely in a dangerous period, where all kinds of pretty awful things could happen because of the twisted perspectives of those in power and those who support them. I see, and have held since the 2000 appointment of Bush to the Presidency that he was a goof-ball, a disgrace to america, but that he was a passing things. All bad things must pass. But that is perhaps parallel to how many Germans saw Hitler. It raises the question of is the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
This idea that New Age tendencies in the US are likely to lead to fascism (even though you seem here to be backing off from saying this) still strikes me as completely wrong. On the contrary, I think New Agers are the least likely to embrace such a view and in fact stand as a bulwark against it. New Agers support people like Kucinich and Obama, not the proto-fascists that are lining up for the Republicans. Look at the support Obama has in Fairfield and compare that to Guiliani and the others who see their divine mission as fighting the Islamofascists. They are the ones we have to worry about. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wouldn't say that New Age tendencies in the U.S. are likely to lead to a fascist regime for three reasons (which comment and expand upon one another endlessy). 1) causal relationships are difficult enough to distinguish from 100% correlations in the hard sciences. In the area of intellectual history it would be next to impossible. 2) There are many ways to see history, but they fall essentially into two camps. One is the shit happens theory of history, which is generally preferred by the academic establishment. They tend to write things like so-and-so came to power or the war broke out. The other is the conspiracy nut point of view, which is expressed by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he says, In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. The truth must lie somewhere in between those two extremes, but, as you know, I tend toward the conspiracy nut perspective by virtue of my programming. 3) What the f... do I know about how things happen in hte world? I am an amness at the core, and exactly what that is, is prolly not knowable, if knowable is restricted to that whereof we can more or less speak. 4) Is thinking the cause of action in the world? Is consciousness identical with the vacuum state? My best friend in another chat group had a great story to tell about that. A fish out of water, he said, Is a Godless fish. The reason a fish out of water flops around in the bottom of the boat is that out of water, he feels like only half a fish. Unlike us, a fish does not have a mid-brain. A fish's sense of life and reality and consciousness comes from the water pressure on the left and right sides of his body. Water is God to a fish, you see. In the boat, he only feels contact with the bottom of the boat. The air does not register in his sense for distinctions drawn. We have a midbrain, so our sense of God or am-ness is located in the famous pineal gland. That is where our sense of Eternity and intelligence resides. The rest is programming of one kind or another. That sense of amness feels immortal and we know all the Hindu stories invented about it as well as all the Christian stories. Given all that, what I see in today's world is a contraction into fascism. I've seen it before. Why does it happen and is it evil, is it necessary and if not how can it be avoided? Those are not, ultimately, questions I can answer. But here is how it looks to me. People (who look like us) are leading the world into a period in which hell on earth looks pretty much like what I was born into in 1940 in Berlin. Why are they doing it? Or is this just part of the cyclical shit that happens in the history of an intelligent species? It sure looks to me that those leading us into such an unpleasant experience use religion, whether it's new age or christian or whatever, to herd us down that road. That doesn't necessarily mean that either religion or new age practice is not also all the good things they claim to be. How does it look to you? authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [addressed to Angela] What's most disturbing about your New Age/Nazi conspiracy theorizing is that the people who are most avidly pushing this fantasy--the Christianist right--are the real proto-fascists in this country. The threat isn't New Age fascism, it's Christo- fascism. I read that and wonder if I am improper, in your view, in looking at some new-age elements in pre-third reich Germany. Depends entirely on what you make of what you find. snip The Christianists are trying to demonize the New Agers as a first step toward demonizing all religions except their fascist brand of Christianity. And you're playing right along with them, inadvertently or otherwise. You're helping the very people who are most likely to bring about what you claim to see coming. Is the recommendation , therefore, in your view, for me to shut down my inquiry I don't see you making dire predictions based on that inquiry that New Age tendencies in the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This idea that New Age tendencies in the US are likely to lead to fascism (even though you seem here to be backing off from saying this) still strikes me as completely wrong. On the contrary, I think New Agers are the least likely to embrace such a view and in fact stand as a bulwark against it. New Agers support people like Kucinich and Obama, not the proto-fascists that are lining up for the Republicans. Look at the support Obama has in Fairfield and compare that to Guiliani and the others who see their divine mission as fighting the Islamofascists. They are the ones we have to worry about. Your take on it is different than mine. I observe, hopefully without generalizing too much, that new-ager, relative to the general population, have tendencies to: 1) be more gullible and trusting 2) have let go of, or suspended, some of their critical faculties and reasoning. (Or never had much and were drawn to new-age stuff, thusly) 3) tend to believe, or want to believe in ONE BIG answer. 4) want to be part of the emerging transformation in this very special age No one, well few, vote for fascist or totalitarian regime. Anglea's post this morning was interesting. Good Germans initially supporting Hitler because he was doing God's work. Or at least creating a strong German economy, increasing employment, supporting the arts, revitalizing German culture. It seems that people with the above four tendencies would initially support a Hitler than hard core skeptics. That FF tends to support left of center fringe candidates also speaks of these tendencies. And the most here were lulled in to a progressive SIMS vision of scientifically researched, simple, no dogma, universal 40 technique of self-development. They ended up 20-30 years later with a repressive, totalitarian like cult, yogic flying, the Laws of Manu, and now mealy mouthed rajas. Did they consciously choose that in the beginning? I suggest the above four tendencies are predominant in most TMO groups, past or present. And the result has been people getting sucked into something they would not have otherwise -- to the extent they did -- if they had been less gullible, more skeptical, more questioning, less attracted to grand solutions and a mission to save the world. I think a group or society with the above four tendencies is a more fertile ground for creeping transition towards, not necessarily to, totalitarian and fascist regimes. Not causal . But a supportive, albeit not intentionally, feature.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
Good post which I don't really have time to reply properly to, but I would say that your point that new-agers are gullible and trusting and have let go of their critical faculties applies when they are talking about such things as astrology, psychics, healers and saints. I don't think it extends to the political world where new-agers (at least the ones I know) tend to be rather savvy, indeed, quite hard-nosed, about the forces of greed and lust for power that drive the world. New agers tend to support environmental causes, which are largely of the left, and I would guess that if asked about it they would be in favor of maintaining civil liberties and exercising diplomacy rather than force in international affairs. I simply cannot see new-agers supporting any emerging fascist movement, however disguised that movement might be. They are more MoveOn.org and Michael Moore types than proto-fascist enablers. The emerging fascists, it seems to me, are the Christians, the right-wing, the people who are willing to curtail civil liberties in the name of an invented war on terrorism, which is a smallish threat made into a big one by those who seek to profit from it in ways financial and ideological. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: This idea that New Age tendencies in the US are likely to lead to fascism (even though you seem here to be backing off from saying this) still strikes me as completely wrong. On the contrary, I think New Agers are the least likely to embrace such a view and in fact stand as a bulwark against it. New Agers support people like Kucinich and Obama, not the proto-fascists that are lining up for the Republicans. Look at the support Obama has in Fairfield and compare that to Guiliani and the others who see their divine mission as fighting the Islamofascists. They are the ones we have to worry about. Your take on it is different than mine. I observe, hopefully without generalizing too much, that new-ager, relative to the general population, have tendencies to: 1) be more gullible and trusting 2) have let go of, or suspended, some of their critical faculties and reasoning. (Or never had much and were drawn to new-age stuff, thusly) 3) tend to believe, or want to believe in ONE BIG answer. 4) want to be part of the emerging transformation in this very special age No one, well few, vote for fascist or totalitarian regime. Anglea's post this morning was interesting. Good Germans initially supporting Hitler because he was doing God's work. Or at least creating a strong German economy, increasing employment, supporting the arts, revitalizing German culture. It seems that people with the above four tendencies would initially support a Hitler than hard core skeptics. That FF tends to support left of center fringe candidates also speaks of these tendencies. And the most here were lulled in to a progressive SIMS vision of scientifically researched, simple, no dogma, universal 40 technique of self-development. They ended up 20-30 years later with a repressive, totalitarian like cult, yogic flying, the Laws of Manu, and now mealy mouthed rajas. Did they consciously choose that in the beginning? I suggest the above four tendencies are predominant in most TMO groups, past or present. And the result has been people getting sucked into something they would not have otherwise -- to the extent they did -- if they had been less gullible, more skeptical, more questioning, less attracted to grand solutions and a mission to save the world. I think a group or society with the above four tendencies is a more fertile ground for creeping transition towards, not necessarily to, totalitarian and fascist regimes. Not causal . But a supportive, albeit not intentionally, feature.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Inquiry --- or Being a Pawn of the Christian Right?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good post which I don't really have time to reply properly to, but I would say that your point that new-agers are gullible and trusting and have let go of their critical faculties applies when they are talking about such things as astrology, psychics, healers and saints. I don't think it extends to the political world where new-agers (at least the ones I know) That seems to imply a conscious choice I'll be gullible about astrology, but I will be really skeptical when it comes to politics. I don't think peoples minds work that way. The gullible are the last to know it. Did you fell gullible when you were deep in the TMO? I think people grow out of gullibility, but at anyone time, they are pretty equally gullible or rationally skeptical about the whole spectrum that cross their plate. tend to be rather savvy, indeed, quite hard-nosed, about the forces of greed and lust for power that drive the world. Pretty savvy is pretty relative. Some conspiracy thinkers may think they are very savvy when they have simply been duped again by some grand thery that they don't or can't analyze deeply and harshly. New agers tend to support environmental causes, Which I do to from my angle. But I see many in environmental groups who are quite golly gee gullible. Environmental groups are not the bastion of rational thinking IME. An ca nbe quite susceptible to groupthink.(which should be #5 on the new age list) which are largely of the left, and I would guess that if asked about it they would be in favor of maintaining civil liberties and exercising diplomacy rather than force in international affairs. While I am not a leftist, I strongly believe in civil liberties, diplomacy, and non-violence -- as an ideal. And I see a lot of naivety on the part of some / many loose-thinking leftists. I simply cannot see new-agers supporting any emerging fascist movement, however disguised that movement might be. Well, we may be defiing terms differently, but look at the wildly cheering crowds in the Domes. Who have much of their lives dictated by a group or leader, and they face severe recriminations if they fall out of line. I would not call that fascist -- which is a very laoded term, but i would call it some big steps towards totalitarianism. They are more MoveOn.org and Michael Moore types than proto-fascist enablers. The funny thing about enablers is they are not always aware of it. The emerging fascists, it seems to me, are the Christians, the right-wing, the people who are willing to curtail civil liberties in the name of an invented war on terrorism, which is a smallish threat made into a big one by those who seek to profit from it in ways financial and ideological. I have no argument that the religious fundamentalists have also taken big steps towards a totalitarian lifestyle and society. To me. there are gullible, non-rational people on many sides of many fences. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: This idea that New Age tendencies in the US are likely to lead to fascism (even though you seem here to be backing off from saying this) still strikes me as completely wrong. On the contrary, I think New Agers are the least likely to embrace such a view and in fact stand as a bulwark against it. New Agers support people like Kucinich and Obama, not the proto-fascists that are lining up for the Republicans. Look at the support Obama has in Fairfield and compare that to Guiliani and the others who see their divine mission as fighting the Islamofascists. They are the ones we have to worry about. Your take on it is different than mine. I observe, hopefully without generalizing too much, that new-ager, relative to the general population, have tendencies to: 1) be more gullible and trusting 2) have let go of, or suspended, some of their critical faculties and reasoning. (Or never had much and were drawn to new-age stuff, thusly) 3) tend to believe, or want to believe in ONE BIG answer. 4) want to be part of the emerging transformation in this very special age No one, well few, vote for fascist or totalitarian regime. Anglea's post this morning was interesting. Good Germans initially supporting Hitler because he was doing God's work. Or at least creating a strong German economy, increasing employment, supporting the arts, revitalizing German culture. It seems that people with the above four tendencies would initially support a Hitler than hard core skeptics. That FF tends to support left of center fringe candidates also speaks of these tendencies. And the most here were lulled in to a progressive SIMS vision of scientifically researched, simple, no dogma, universal 40 technique of self-development. They ended up 20-30
